Question For Rich - Steam

That's the way it is in our engine--but we're only going 15 MPH! But then again, it's an 0-4-0T. At the end of the day, I'm physically exhausted just from trying to maintain balance (we don't have seats in our cab).

Wheelbase, speed and track condition all play a part in a ride's "roughness."

I can't wait to see Rich's response to this. In my experience of riding and or working on steam locomotives, both short line and main line, I have experienced only one "rough ride", in some 57 years. That would have been in 1977, on the "famous Illinois Central double track main line", south of Jackson, MS, enroute to New Orleans, with the Amtrak Transcontinental Steam Excursion. During a station stop, well south of Jackson, the IC official riding the cab, made the mistake of asking our Engineer, Doyle McCormack, "How fast will this old thing go?". Obviously the WRONG thing to say! McCormack responded with, "You don't have a railroad fast enough for THIS engine!". The official responded with, "This is the IC Main Line of Mid-America, good for 100 MPH,,,,,let's see what she'll do.".

Well,,,,,THAT was all it took; McCormack looked over at me and showed me three fingers, which indicated to me,  "300psi and KEEP HER THERE, NO MATTER WHAT!". We had generally been running at 70MPH, and the track was really pretty rough, but after that station stop, with a full throttle start, and remaining wide open, after 75MPH it got REALLY rough. Above 80MPH, the track was so rough that the dust was flying out of the back head insulation, and gauges were becoming difficult to read due to the extreme vibration. Finally, just prior to the speedometer reaching 90 MPH, the official finally chicked out, and yelled. "OK, OK,,,,don't letter go any faster!!!!", at which point McCormack put a little application to the train brakes and eased off a bit on the throttle, so as to cruise around 70 to 75 MPH.

That was the ONLY rough ride I ever experienced involving any steam locomotive.

I'm curious to hear what Rich as to say too.  I know for instance that the some of the earlier Nickel Plate Lima Berks were rather rough riding machines, but supposedly that was fixed on those and later units by installing Franklin radial buffers (whatever that is). I have also heard that 765 got pretty rough towards the end before going into the shop in the mid 90's due to everything in the suspension being pretty well worn.

The Franklin Radial Buffer is the spring loaded device that retains the tender, drawn up tight, to the engine's rear frame member, so that there is absolutely NO SLACK between the engine & tender. If that assembly ever gets worn enough so that there iIS any amount of slack between the engine & tender, you would not believe the pounding effect that occurs as speed increases.

Since the first overhaul (ending 1979) we have had various enginemen show up from time to time and tell us about the rough riders.  The S-1's 733 and 739 reportedly had "square wheels" and those engine numbers were confirmed independently by different enginemen.

The second batch of S-2's, the 755-769, were universally rated the best of the 700's with the exception of the 767.  The 767 was wrecked at New Haven's NE tower in 1951 and apparently the NKP couldn't get the frame straightened out perfectly.  Author John Rehor reported that the 763 and the 765 were the favorites among road crews.  As a low-ranked mechanical talent, I suspect that the underlying reason those two were the favorites was because the frame layout at the Lima plant was as close to perfectly square (or parallel when called for) and that meant fewer binds which caused less wear and therefore a smoother ride.  Kinda like "the stars were all in alignment"?

Rich can report on the riding or performance characteristics of the 765, 2716, 261 and maybe a couple of others.

One wonders how history would have played out if the NKP had actually donated 767 to the city of Fort Wayne instead of 765 in disquise.  The FWRHS MIGHT have ended up with a locomotive that would have been a real headache to maintain and operate due to the accident damage.  I was quite srprised to read in a recent TRAINS article how badly messed up Southern 4501 was, mostly from undocumented damage over it's service life, and the issues that it caused.

If the real 767 had wound up in Lawton Park, the effort would probably have never gotten out of the starting gate.  Part of the impetus among the five founders was that the park engine DID have such a stellar reputation, was kept indoors for several years, was mechanically complete and was not worn out when retired.  Then in May 1969 we saw the 759 pull the Golden Spike Centennial Limited through Fort Wayne westbound and Lima on the eastbound return.  We then knew that one of these could be brought back from the dead after over a decade.

I believe that one reason for the "supposed superiority" of the S-2 class R/Nos 740-769 was due to their sheer numbers and the fact that they ran all over the NKP. There were only ten S-3's, R/Nos 770-779, and they ran mostly on the east end of the NKP, from Buffalo to Bellevue. I would put an S-3 up against any S-2 any day. It is true that the S-3 class was retired a little before the S-2's ran their last miles. My photos indicate that a number of S-2's were downgraded to local service since they were retrofitted with Alco air assisted power reverse gears, while the S-3 class kept their Precision gear to the end. (No engineer wanted to crank the reverse wheel numerous times when required to reverse the engine on a local train in setout service.) The S-3 class were a little heavier than the S-2, and had postwar quality including a return to bronze bells, and other minor improvements. All of the NKP Berkshires were great engines, but in my opinion the S-3 class, among them 770, 772, 774, 777, 778, and 779 were the "best of the best". And I believe that most of the former NKP "east enders" would agree with me.

I would agree that at least in theory, the S3's should be a little bit better machines.  Sadly, since there is only one left, and the odds of it ever operating again are slim to none, I'll guess we'll never know. I have alwas been a little disappointed that all of the remaining NKP Berks are from such a narrow group of locos, especially if you exclude 779.  It would have been nice if some of the earlier examples had survived too.

It has been a busy few days between OGR work and flying a few corporate clients to various destinations, but I finally have a moment to respond to this question.

The answers below are based upon my own experience running the various engines that I have had the pleasure to run over the years.

BEST RIDING STEAM LOCOMOTIVE

Without a doubt, Milwaukee Road 4-8-4 No. 261. When we leased this locomotive to run the New River trips in 1994, I was immediately impressed with the riding qualities of this locomotive. Compared to the 765 of 1993 (see below) she rode like a Cadillac! Because the 261 has an all-weather cab she was a little warmer inside than other locomotives I've run, but all things considered, running the 261 was a very pleasant experience.

SECOND BEST RIDING LOCOMOTIVE

NKP 765. Several of our crew have commented that the post-overhaul 765 rides better than the crew car! With the running gear all back to blueprint specs, the ride is pretty nice now.

WORST RIDING STEAM LOCOMOTIVE

No question - PM 1225. I rode that engine a couple of times 1991 when we double-headed with her. At speed it vibrated so badly that the radio mount broke and a handrail broke - all from the violent shaking that was going on. The vibration was so bad, there were times when I couldn't read the air gauges! Those issues have been fixed and I hear she rides quite nicely now, although I have not been in the engine for many years.

SECOND WORST RIDING STEAM LOCOMOTIVE(S)

It's a tie between BC&G 2-8-0 #13 from the Ohio Central and the pre-overhaul NKP 765 of the early 90's.

I ran the 13 only a couple of times on the Ohio Central for various events, and she was one rough-riding son of a gun. Lots of hard bumps and cab movement all around. Of course, it's an older locomotive with no trailing truck, so that had a lot to do with it.

The 765 of the early 90's was also a rough ride, but in a different way. In that era, the 765's drive wheels were out of balance due to material having leached out of the counterweights over the years. At anything over about 25 mph, the locomotive bounced vertically in rhythm to the rotation speed of the drivers. At 50 mph it was almost unbearable! After a few hours with the locomotive beating up on me like that, I was absolutely beat! Today - with ROUND WHEELS AGAIN - she too rides like a Cadillac, almost as good as the 261.

I have never had the opportunity to ride the cab of the 4449, so I can only imagine what that high-speed run on rough track must have been like!

I can't remember if this has been asked before, but HW which rides better?  The 844 or the 49'? Track conditions being the same.

I guess I'd have say the UP844, especially ever since she had all her suspension system rebuilt in the early 2000. However, the absolute BEST riding steam locomotive that I have EVER worked on would have to be UP3985!

Not having ridden on any of the above and never getting the chance to be on N&W 1218, I will have to cast my vote for none other than the N&W 611. Really smoooooth! I was a bit surprised that you could feel the air compressors pumping while sitting still.

Boy I never would have guessed the 3985.  Thanks for the info.

I remember Ed King talking about how smooth riding the J's were as well.

I have one thing to add re the NKP Berkshires. It was pointed out to me some time ago that on "some" NKP Berkshires the leaf springs were on only the front three driver axles, and a coil spring arrangement was used on the #4 driver axle set. I also learned that similar engines like the C&O Kanawhas used a coil spring arrangement on one axle, which I seem to remember was the third (main). I have a Berk near me, the 755, and will have to check that arrangement. It would be interesting to know how 759, 765, and 779 were arranged. My source, who has a complete set of NKP Berk drawings for his live steamers, told me that the NKP drawings document this but not the reason why. Also, how are other steamers arranged, like UP 844, 3985, and N&W 611? I have seen and photographed all three but never looked! The damping characteristics of leafs vs coils are certainly different, and the use of proper sized coils might soften the ride.

All leaf springs on 4449, 844, and 3985.

The 611 is all leaf springs.

I don't recall any steam locomotive having coil springs, at least not on the drivers.

Rusty

Not common, but some locomotives had coil springs on only specific driver axles.